In Berachos 51b (8:1), Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel argue about when making kiddush on an ordinary seudah whether one should make the brachah on the day first, or the brachah on the wine. Beis Shammai holds the former; Beis Hillel holds the latter.

In Pesachim 114a (10:2) they have exactly the same argument regarding Kadeish at the Seder. Why do they need to have the same argument twice? Why can't they argue about seudos in general, and I would understand that they hold the same regarding the Seder? Why would I think it would be different?

In fact, the Gemara in neither sugya addresses the replication, but it does explain the argument, and it gives the same explanation. That is, according to Beis Shammai, the blessing on the day comes first because the day is what causes the wine to be drunk, and chronologically the day begins before the wine is drunk. According to Beis Hillel, the blessing on the wine comes first because the wine is what sanctifies the day, and the birchas hayayin happens more often than the birchas hayom; thus, tadir v'she'eino tadir tadir kodem.

Do these reasons not apply to the Seder that we would think either Beis Shamai or Beis Hillel would hold differently?

1 Answer
1

The Mishna in Brachot is discussing the differences between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel at a meal; one of them being the order of Kiddush/Hagefen at a Shabbat/Chag meal - and the Gemara explains why they argue.

The Mishna in Pesachim is discussing the order of the Seder in detail - and mentions the same argument - since it's relevant to the order of the Seder. The Gemara recaps the dispute.

It's not unusual for a Mishna to repeat parts of another Mishna when it's relevant, in order to give the entire picture.

It's not unusual for the Gemara to repeat itself - the Gilyon HaShas can be found on almost on every page of Gemara; all he does is cross-reference other places where the Gemara discusses the same tyhing.

Sometimes we even have an entire Mishna repeated, the stress each time being on a different section. E.g. Me'ila 3:1 and Temura 4:1, or Keilim 2:1 and Keilim 15:1 or Zevachim 1:1 and Yadaim 4:2

In Temurah it addresses why it's repeated. In Keilim it doesn't, but I'll give it a pass since there is no Gemara on Keilim. The one in Yadayim is also cheating because it lists everything that was "Bo Bayom." If we're counting that, we have to count just about all of Eduyos. There's also BM 7:8 and Shavuos 8:1. But the Gemara in Shavuos asks why the Mishnah is repeated. Also Shavuos 1:1, 3:1, Shabbos 1:1, and Negaim 1:1, though, again, the Gemara in Shavuos addresses that. (Con't)
– DonielFMar 27 '17 at 14:38

But, again, there's no apparent reason why the Mishnayos in Brachos and Pesachim should be repeated.
– DonielFMar 27 '17 at 14:39

"no apparent reason why the Mishnayos in Brachos and Pesachim should be repeated" - I thought I explained that rather well. :-(
– Danny SchoemannMar 27 '17 at 14:46

Just because it somewhat tangentially relates to the Seder means that it's repeated? I suppose that fits into the theme with the other Mishnayos, but I would have liked the Gemara to say that.
– DonielFMar 27 '17 at 14:50

Also, if we're just mentioning things that are related to the Seder, let's just go through all of the halachos of Kiddush, why don't we?
– DonielFApr 6 '17 at 18:41